From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com]
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Related question of the day: what's the response format for the
version-tree report with depth: 1 applied to a collection that
itself is not versioned but contains one version controlled member?
So for depth 1 one would get:
207 MULTISTATUS
<multistatus xmlns="DAV:">
<response>
<href>/collection/</href>
<status>HTTP/1.1 409 Conflict</status>
<responsedescription><error><supported-report/>
</error></responsedescription> </response>
<response>
<href>/collection/a</href>
<propstat>
<prop>
...now what?...
</prop>
<status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</status>
</propstat>
</response>
</multistatus>
RFC3253 seems to indicate that the <prop> element for the version
controlled member must return the requested report. The format for
the version-tree report defines a multistatus response body. So
would the <prop> element contain another <multistatus> sub-tree?
Yes.
BTW, I'm not happy with that answer, but it is what RFC3253 says.
In retrospect, I wish we had given every REPORT response its own
xml element such as is done with the DAV:merge-preview-report
(possibly nesting the multistatus within that).
For any new reports we define, we definitely should do so.
Cheers,
Geoff